Time Domain presentation at CSP

[Douglas Tody]

I haven't been following this discussion but will just note that ObsCore
defines a dataset/dataproduct type and subtype.  Future versions of the
image, spectrum, and time series data models extend ObsCore, so they
inherit this feature too.  The primary "type" for a time series dataset
is "timeseries".  The optional "subtype" is intended to say more about
what type of data it is (possibly in an archive-specific fashion), and
the vocabulary is left open at this point.  Also, we have discussed
having a separate subclass of metadata for each class of data (image,
spectrum, timeseries, etc.); this does not yet exist, but would provide
a place to put type-specific metadata that extends the generic model and
is too type-specific to be included in the core model.  - Doug


On Thu, 18 Jun 2015, esm wrote:

> Hi Rob,
>
>> The IVOA has never met a “type” paradigm it never liked.  Is DatasetType 
>> supposed to provide an exhaustively exclusive list of all possible 
>> variations of time series, etc?  Or is it rather more like a mime type in 
>> concept; capturing the broad essence like “I am an image” versus “I am a 
>> spectrum” versus “I am a time series”?
> I guess it is more a broad definition of the type of product.
>
>> More to the point there will never be crowds clamoring for data models. 
>> Rather, they will clamor for practical file formats and the tools and 
>> libraries needed to create them for internal use and for interchange. The 
>> amount of clamor will be directly proportional to actual science they want 
>> to achieve, not to any philosophical vision of computing.
>
> I agree. People started to do VO-science once tools like Aladin, TOPCAT or 
> VOSA were available; tools that, taking advantage of the standardization 
> behind the scene,  allow users to discover, gather and analyse data in an 
> efficient way. That is the level we should reach for time series. But we 
> don't even have standards yet...
>
>> STS was never just an interim IVOA DM “solution”,
> It was. Have a look at the IVOA Note "Employing SimpleTimeSeries for 
> representing time series" (Graham et al.)
> http://www.ivoa.net/documents/Notes/SimpleTimeSeries/index.html
>
>> Perhaps the question might best be posed as how to represent SDM v2.0 
>> compliant data using STS. Maybe this will require adding some parameters to 
>> STS, but this will be more persuasive after attending to Arnold’s comments, 
>> for instance. In general IVOA will find more success at incrementally 
>> evolving pre-existing standards (toward adherence to shiny new IVOA DMs) 
>> than with convincing astronomers and projects to drop what they are doing 
>> and pick up something new entirely.
>
> Yes but I am a data provider willing to publish light curves in the VO. 
> Almost three years ago, in the Sao Paulo interop, I raised the need for a 
> data model for light curves. At that time, STS seemed the best option as only 
> some minor modifications were needed to properly describe simple time series 
> (my case, magnitude vs time). Nevertheless nothing happened and now SDM seems 
> more adequate for my service. That's why, if I have to choose now, I would 
> choose SDM.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Enrique.
>
> -- 
> Enrique Solano Márquez
> Spanish Virtual Observatory
> Centro de Astrobiología (INTA-CSIC)
> Campus Villafranca.
> P.O. Box 78
> 28691 Villanueva de la Cañada
> Madrid, Spain
>